Aggregator
Mets waste numerous chances in brutal 10-inning loss to Angels
Karl-Anthony Towns’ cameo in ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’ was ‘an honor’
Unruly man nabbed by Secret Service at Trump’s Florida golf course a week after Correspondents’ Dinner shooting
Knicks, red-hot 76ers set for chance to add to postseason history two years after thrilling series
Alliance Fracture Is Now Global
Authored by Gregory Copley via The Epoch Times,
Western focus was, in 2026, on whether U.S. President Donald Trump would fulfill his threat to withdraw the United States from NATO. Eastern and Southern focus was on whether the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS alliance were even functioning.
In the U.S.–NATO standoff, it may take more complex political maneuvering for Trump to achieve a breakup of the alliance. Certainly, he could withdraw the U.S. military from European basing, but Congress in 2023 approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an act of Congress. The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and, ironically, Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)—now Trump’s secretary of state—was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Joe Biden.
It may be more feasible for Trump to have the United States leave aspects of the military component of the North Atlantic Alliance, as French President Charles de Gaulle did in withdrawing from the NATO integrated military command structure—but not the North Atlantic Alliance—in 1967. Other members of NATO may themselves go beyond that to abandon NATO in order to form a new alliance, but that is a separate issue.
Of real, but as yet unexplored, interest is that other alliances have been forced to the sidelines because Trump initiatives, and time, have rendered them ineffective.
Among the most important of these are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS. Secondarily, the informal Quad alliance against China—of India, the United States, Japan, and Australia—is quietly becoming less tight.
The SCO, which emerged in 2001 from the 1996 Shanghai Five security arrangement, now has 10 member states, most of which harbor suspicions about other members of the SCO. It was meant to contain a mutual security clause to require members to support other members under attack from outside. SCO membership includes Iran, and that clause has proven to be unenforceable as the wars against Iran continue. So the SCO is now effectively inoperable, except as a showcase with an expensive bureaucracy.
Similarly, BRICS—which began as a working group of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—was designed to circumvent U.S. domination of global trade systems by finding alternatives to trading using the U.S. dollar. The BRICS membership had expanded by 2026 to 10 states, adding Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. But it failed to shake the United States’ ability to control and sustain a global sanctions regime against political leaders who used the U.S. dollar in ways deemed inimical to U.S. interests.
BRICS achieved some new trading modalities that avoided the use of the U.S. dollar, but this did little to weaken the U.S. currency, or strengthen the currencies of BRICS members. But that was to be expected. This journal, as early as 2008, was discussing the end of the globalist, multinational framework of financing the international logistics chain based on the U.S. dollar. It discussed a return to bilateralism of trading methodologies, including barter and countertrade, which had, even in the 1970s, been a normal practice.
The past year-plus has seen the promoters of BRICS—as a defensive mechanism against the United States—becoming incapable of creating a new trade finance system. A proposed BRICS currency has come to naught; the currency of China has weakened to the point that it is hardly tradeable. And so on.
At what point is the Trump administration prepared to push for the complete breakdown of “opposing currencies,” not just of the BRICS states’ proposed new currency, but even of the euro and sterling?
Has all of this saved and bolstered the U.S. dollar? By default, yes; there is still no viable alternative to the use of the U.S. currency for major world trade.
But is Trump yet through with his plans to diminish, and perhaps totally dispense with, the United Nations? He has certainly hit key aspects of the U.N. that were heavily dependent on U.S. taxpayer contributions. The U.N. itself has been making itself less relevant and less forceful; it has taken an extremely polarizing, leftist position on many international issues and, at the same time, has been disregarded by the United States and other powers.
This, in turn, has made it less useful to Beijing, which entered the U.N. on Oct. 25, 1971, displacing the original founding member, the Republic of China, also known as Taiwan. China then began a sustained campaign to use U.N. agencies for political influence. So some of Trump’s anti-U.N. activities were clearly designed as moves against China.
What is the impact of the diminishing role of the U.N.? It has become less trusted as an instrument to impartially mediate interstate conflicts, and this makes its International Criminal Court (ICC)—to which the United States is not a signatory—also less trusted. The attempt to use the ICC as a key body to create “international law” out of thin air has now become discredited, or less of an influence. The World Trade Organization is also increasingly disregarded, as are regional bodies, such as ECOWAS in West Africa, and the Organization of American States.
So to what extent was the “rules-based world order” a creature of this utopianist U.N. thinking, or was it merely a reflection of a pax Americana?
If Trump wished to move heavily against the U.N., his best timing might be before the U.S. midterm congressional elections in November. But could he make it stick?
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 23:20‘Crocodile Dundee’ star Paul Hogan spotted after son arrested for domestic battery at actor’s home
Gavin Newsom torn to shreds over his report on California’s population: ‘He’s blatantly lying’
Mets need to see better production from struggling youngsters who were once the future
Yankees’ bullpen turns in uneven performances with roles still up for grabs
Rare ‘ash devil’ spotted during SoCal wildfire
Jalen Brunson not buying into narrative of Knicks being East team to beat in playoffs: ‘I don’t care’
Dodgers’ offense wakes up too late as losing streak reaches four games
Secretary of State Marco Rubio takes on yet another job — wedding DJ
Mitchell Robinson’s Knicks challenge will only get greater as ‘physical’ playoffs continue
Mob of teens storms Times Square Scientology church amid viral ‘speed running’ trend
DOJ Releases Report Alleging Anti-Christian Bias Under Biden
Authored by Savannah Halsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,
The Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 30 released a 500-page report detailing alleged anti-Christian bias on the part of the Biden administration.
According to the report by the DOJ’s Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, the former administration’s prosecutions, policies, and practices constituted bias throughout multiple agencies, in accordance with the administration’s priorities.
The task force is chaired by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
“No American should live in fear that the federal government will punish them for their faith,” Blanche said. “As our report lays out, the Biden Administration’s actions devastated the lives of many Christian Americans.”
Around 200 pages of the report are dedicated to the actions of more than 17 federal agencies that uncovered alleged religious discrimination. The investigation included a review of internal discussions and case files, as well as prosecutorial decisions.
There were details of a since-retracted 2023 FBI memo on “radical traditionalist” Catholics, which cited the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The review also listed Biden-era regulations on abortion, contraception, gender, and human sexuality, among other issues that pitted the government against religious groups.
The report also makes note of the Biden administration’s reading of the 2019 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which led to decisions that were based on what the Trump administration report called “sex-based discrimination in federally funded schools and sports.”
According to the DOJ report, the previous administration used the FBI, IRS, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies to monitor, investigate, and apply pressure to various Christian groups at a federal level.
The current DOJ’s task force was formed in accordance with President Donald Trump’s Feb. 6, 2025, executive order titled Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.
The president ordered multiple agencies to investigate what he called an “egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses.”
Conflicting ResponseThis is a “very different Department of Justice ... than the previous administration,” said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers.
“The conclusion in the report, at least from an enforcement perspective, was that ... federal law was disproportionately used to prosecute pro-life and other Christians under the Biden administration,” he told The Epoch Times.
However, Rahmani, who worked at the DOJ from 2009 to 2012, said that while policies change, he has not seen a “systematic bias for or against” any one religious group.
“I don’t necessarily see ... [that] Christian activists in this country are receiving more prison time for violent acts, as opposed to, you know, Muslim or other religious groups.”
According to Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, director of the Conscience Project, the report “calls out the brazen assault against religious freedom by the former administration for what it was: a failure of constitutional and statutory duty.”
Picciotti-Bayer said in an emailed statement that the Biden administration disregarded “fundamental guarantees” in the First Amendment and federal civil rights law, and treated “sincere religious objections as obstacles to overcome, prosecuting peaceful prayer, trampling on parental rights and steamrolling conscience rights.”
The Interfaith Alliance, however, which states its mission is to “challenge Christian nationalism and religious extremism,” responded to the DOJ report, saying their group has “consistently opposed the work of this ‘task force.’” It accused the DOJ of trying to “undermine Americans’ religious freedom and First Amendment rights.”
The alliance called the task force’s report a “political stunt designed to promote the lie that American Christians are a persecuted group, while providing justification to target anyone deemed out of step with their Christian nationalist agenda.”
Previous ReportThis report comes just weeks after an 800-page report from the department, detailing the “weaponization” of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which called out alleged prosecutorial problems, surveillance activities undertaken by pro-abortion groups, and failures to comply with federal law.
Biden’s DOJ did not enforce the law evenly, according to the April 14 report.
The task force under the Biden administration treated pro-life groups differently from pro-abortion groups, outlining disproportionate coordination with pro-abortion groups that, according to the report, indicated bias and prosecutorial overreach.
In her statement, Picciotti-Bayer said, “Religious freedom isn’t a courtesy the government extends—it’s a legal check on what government can do. It’s refreshing to see that recognized today.”
Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 22:10